Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.

The phrase 'stealing in the name of the Lord' has a lot or resonance in our world today. Churches and charities both harvest money from the poor and the gullible even more efficiently than a combine cuts wheat.As a practising agnostic, I can only hope that if there is a Greater Power (other than Microsoft) that we have to answer to, these sanctimonious ,lying, thieving, deceiving & misrepresentational con artists get their just deserts.

....According to mathamatics there is an infinite number of universes,

Citation to support that please. The universe is 13.7 billion years old.

It means a monkey can indeed write the sonnets of Shakespeare, its calculated it would take longer then our universe has existed and is the same odds as winning the lottery for 29,000 yrs in a row.

I don't think you've fully understood that particular "thought experiment", nor statistical probability in general. . We have neither an infinite number of monkeys typing, nor an infinite amount of time. But even if we did, the chances of success are still effectively zero, and can easily be calculated.

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys the size of atoms typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be a great many orders of magnitude less than one in 10(to the power of)183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers." This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Numbers are infinte,therefore so is time, thus everything is possible.This is proven by mathamatics, its not some theory, thus the probability of intelligence creating the universe as opposed it it simply existing out of random chaos is highly possible.

(my emphasis)Define "highly possible". It's not at all "highly possible". Any more than any other primitive creation myth is "highly possible".eg That the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle, standing on the back of an elephant etc. Their origins are anthropologically interesting, none the less.Read more creation myths here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

There are more universes out there then grains of sands that exist on Earth.

It means conventional scientific theories may exit on our 3D planet but outside it all bets are off, anything is possible.

It's really more of a "4D" Planet (at least!) The laws of physics, apply universally. There may be "other dimensions", "string theory" etc, and things we don't yet understand, eg. "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy", and "Dark Flow". etc.But none of those will ever turn out to be an "intelligent, sentient being", which gives a flying sh1t about what any one particular species, on any one particular planet, in any one particular Galaxy, does.

We evolved our 'morality', by consensus, it wasn't "dictated" by some 'deity'.It changes, over time, and completely, under different circumstances. (Survival is an instinct, not an agreed 'rule')I taught my children "the golden rule", because it makes sense, and it was around for eons before christianity claimed it.Because largely, we've agreed to co-operate, and strive for harmonious co-existence, we've realised that it's in our best interests, to minimises conflict.

In his book, "The God Delusion", Dawkins speculates about the seemingly inherent 'nature' of people to 'want' gods, from an anthropological point of view. How these myths have endured, over time, and how they seem to have been a 'running theme', throughout our existence, to date.

Personally, I think it's all about knowledge. I can't imagine "un-learning" all that I know now. If I could imagine myself to be "living wild", trying to "make sense" of everything I saw, would be very difficult. Life is already scary and difficult to understand, even with 'all mod cons'. Primitive people attributed the seemingly random nature of personally catastrophic events, to deities. Life, Death, disease, and disasters were thus given 'meanings'. Humans like "meanings", particularly where life and death are concerned.

It's really egotistical (IMO) to suppose yourself to have some "importance". On a cosmological scale, even individuals like Caeser, Hitler, or Ghengis Khan, are insignificant.

My life has the same "value" as that of any insect.That doesn't trouble me at all, nor stop me from enjoying it, and living it to the full.I find life (mostly) very enjoyable, and accept it for what it is. I find it fascinating, and intriguing, Art, Science,History, I'm interested in our pasts, and how we arrived at the point we're at. I can fully understand how the various "god/gods" myths arose, in context.But, I have no "need" for deities. I know how we got here.There really are no "Gods".

I wouldn't mind people believing in their various versions of "gods" at all, if it were harmless, and benign, (as they claim.)But a cursory look at "Israel", and the "Holy Land", and it's history, or any modern 'theocracy', demonstrates otherwise.

Religions, Like "Race", "Tribe", and "Nationality" are just another one of those "social constructs", which seems to serve no purpose, other than to divide. ( And to elevate some individuals above their meritocratic status, but based on some forms of self-declared extreme 'piety', which in reality, is nothing more than a form of 'OCD')The history of all three Abrahamic Faiths are littered with wars and violence, and that continues today.

Religions are inflexible, and uncompromising, by their nature. They can't negotiate on the "word of god", whichever word, and whichever "god" that is..They can't be edited, or changed.Such invented divisions, and unwillingness to compromise, are the basis of wars. And I hate wars.I believe there is no "Us" and "Them", at all. Only Us."Idealistic"..? "Unachievable"..? ~Maybe..But without ideals, we wouldn't even know which direction to be headed in.The sooner we get rid of our beliefs in our different religions, and "gods", the better off we'll all be.

Religion has its uses, but its not the truth. As they say- to believe in something is to admit it isn't the truth, as once you know the truth, you no longer believe, you know. So, to believe is to acknowledge something is unknown.

Humans being self aware have an anxiety with the knowledge of their own and others inevitable death. Religion is a way of dealing with this awareness of our own demise. A coping mechanism.

I stopped believing when i realised reincarnation is pointless.. Why do you live again after you die? Doesn't that make the 1st life you live pointless? Why not just live forever and not bother with the dying bit? Its so stupid it actually insults my intelligence.

I agree with some of that... Especially the second half of your opening paragraph.

But going with that and going with something I mentioned earlier, there is only one thing I KNOW to be true - that my mind exists - and it is something that cannot be proven.

Therefore everything else has to be something I believe or disbelieve, as I cannot know that it is the truth.

EVERYTHING I have ever perceived or experienced... EVERYONE I've ever encountered or heard of, could all be a product of the one thing I know to exist and the key point is, that no matter how much some people may argue the point (although quite worryingly all people... even the evil c*nts and total fvckwits of the world... could just be constructs of my imagination) it cannot be disproved.

So I believe in evolution. I have faith in the findings of science. I trust in logic... but I am well aware that no matter how unlikely it may be, there is a chance that I am wrong.

So in a way, "god" could be inside my mind. As, not only could my mind be the only thing that exists, but it might also be the creator of abso-fvcking-lutely everything I have ever been or will ever be aware of.

Finally, if I was a omnipotent cosmic architect, I would happily create a universe that proved I didn't exist.... If you can create a universe, how hard would it be to age a planet by a few billion years, stick in a few fossils and implement evolution?

Just to clarify OP ... was this a discussion on brain function or a religion-bashing thread? I may have posted the wrong link, that's all.

its about both, i mean its generally accepted that different areas of the brain control different feelings and urges, hence why science takes a look at those with addictions and who have done very bad things to understand the impact the brain has ....

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/science-addiction/drugs-brain

this is quite commonly accepted, and so why not look into what affect religion has on people, after all in quite a few people religion is addictive same as drug abuse, as well as those craving power, quite a few have replaced one addiction for another being religion to fund the cravings inside.

the same could be said about those giving speeches via the pulpit, i mean some people are more influenced the others which again most likely to do with how a persons brain is wired up or those that are prepared to follow and believe whats said to them ....

edit vvvv a bit more credible then a bloke who does not exist but has followers who wear dresses and demands money ....

no, of course i believe the bloke who got it from his dad and his pastor, based on what they were told by their dads.. who got it from a book written by some meandering murderous bronze age shepherds... that makes much more sense

I refer you to this BBC programme about it, where everything is made clear by physicists and mathamaticans. As opposed to the university of wiki (rollseyes).

^^Presumably THAT was your attempt at providing a citation to support your assertion that

....According to mathamatics there is an infinite number of universes,

Who do you suppose writes for wiki..? Dustmen..?I watched it, thanks, it was interesting.

I hope the Mod's will give us some latitude on this slightly 'off-topic', but relevant divergence.(Just don't start calling me names! )

6:40 "A Google, (One, followed by 100 zeroes) is "more atoms than in the entire observable universe."(therefore, the universe is finite!)9:00 "Graham's Number", it's big, and ends in a 7

20:42 "Infinity is a place you go to work, to DO mathematics, it's not a real place, you can't actually go there, except in your imagination"

22:35 Professor Zeilberger: "I always found something repulsive about it (Infinity) Infinite mathematics, to me, is meaningless, because it's like abstract nonsense. In my opinion, infinity is only a fiction of the human mind"

24:40 Professor Zeilberger: "In mathematics, there is no place for either infinity or God"

25:50 In 1600, philosopher Giodaro Bruno (sp?) claimed not only that the universe was infinite, but there would be many other earths, orbiting stars just like our own sun.(We've learned an awful lot since then!)

31:58 Is space infinitely big? Or simply unimaginably big?They then go on to disprove the Monkey Shakespeare hypothesis (Which the "Universtity of Wiki" also did, quite adequately!)as: " Less than 1 in , 1, and then 9 million zeros. An unbelievably unlikely thing to occur"..

45:07 The exact number of sub-atomic particles in the universe is a FINITE number. (10 [to the power of] 118) And "Multiply that, by the diameter of the observable universe" (AGAIN a FINITE value(10 [to the power of] 26 meters) "IF, (and it's a big IF!) the universe is truly infinite, then these replicas have to exist. "

-But it isn't, it's not infinite, as the above quotes adequately show, it's just expanding.

47:40 "I prefer a finite universe, because it's the only universe that makes intuitive sense to me."

47:50 "many physicists believe space could be curved, or folded-back on itself."// You don't need infinity to produce a universe that has no edge"

48:17 "We're probably never going to know whether our universe is infinite, or actually finite in size// the best we can say right now, is the universe is extraordinarily large".

53:20 "Inflation theory" (10 [to the power of]-32 seconds)This is basically an explanation which accounts for the uniformity in the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation) present in the observable universe, some 400 million years after the 'Big bang'. It all expanded, much bigger, and much faster, than had previously been thought. A mathematician then extrapolates that "inflation theory" opens up the POSSIBILITY of infinitely "multiple universes". But possibilities are not the same as probabilities or realities.

So your statement SHOULD have read:

....According to SOME mathematicians, there could be an infinite number of universes,

The 'devil really IS in the detail'.

It's really simple: We really still don't know everything. We know that the universe is expanding, at faster than we can measure. (literally, it seems that at the edges, that expansion may actually be accelerating!).

But it's currently thought to be approximately 90 Billion Light Years across. Not "infinite". We only think of it as "infinite", because it's continually expanding, so it effectively IS, (to us, but it's all 'relative'. ) but we don't know if that will always be the case, other calculations show a "heat death", and inevitable entropy.

What is it 'expanding into.? Nothing. No Space, no matter, no anti-matter, no 'super-symmetry', no time.We know how it got started, from the 'Big Bang', some 13.7 Billion years ago, before that , there was no time, (Well, there are theories that it all repeats!) as we understand it.

String theory postulates that there may be a "multiverse", but currently we only accept one UNIverse. The clue is in the word.

And there lies one of the many problems, we still don't fully understand time, and matter, gravity and the recently discovered 'dark matter' (Though Einstein's Theories have so far proved correct. )

Time itself is neither infinite nor uniform, and it had a beginning. [Similarly, I don't think that the speed of light is a constant. (although everyone else does!) ] We'll see....

In the past, any questions which couldn't be answered, anything which wasn't known about, or which had no explanation, was attributed to "God/Gods".

It's perfectly fine to say there are things we just don't know.We know how matter formed, we know how long ago. We know how we evolved, and it's all completely contrary to religious myths.

If there were any "god" or "gods", it would be self-evident.

We wouldn't need any priests, churches, or holy books, to advise us of it's/their existence.And the 4000 different religions, would all be one and the same, all with the same rules, and creation myths.Religions, and their associated gods and myths are a sham.Perhaps a well-meaning one, (by some anyway), but none the less, pure fiction.

"Praying to god" for assistance, has been shown to be futile at best, at worst, sick people get sicker.

But they don't claim anything, when people who are perfectly well, inexplicably get sick, or die. This number greatly exceeds the above, by orders of magnitude.

There are also no explanations given for the millions who die from starvation, disease, fires, floods etc. (Other than a few extreme nutters, who claim that was "god's wrath" for "allowing homosexuality")

Your notion of "god" comes from a monotheistic tradition, and 'christian' background.

The answers lie in physics and cosmology, not in gods or religions, or the "paranormal" Prof. Brian Cox on the LHC and (at the end) Creation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtz40kex6hU

Perhaps, but only by comparison. You might well have that same opinion, of a cauliflower. It's all 'relative'.If you're gonna start with the insults, the thread will get 'nuked'. I told you that. Don't do it

if you keeping adding one to a number you get a bigger number thus numbers are infinite. A google is a massive number but there are ones much larger like Grahams number. You obviously dont get the point,

I get that point, you don't get the point that the universe is finite, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to say:

the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies at least one Planck volume.

My bold.

I will try to expain again, we are made of combinations of atoms and molecules, the fact numbers are infinite means probabilty in a universe of infinate time and space will be repeated,

The fact that numbers are infinite, doesn't "mean" anything. Numbers are on paper, an abstract concept.There is a difference between applied mathematics, and theoretical, or "pure" Maths.I can draw a picture of a cow jumping over the moon, on paper, but that doesn't make it a "fact".Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" (Wiki)

thus by this fact other planets like Earth will exist in our infinite universe or other parallel universes (I also refer you to Anthropic principle).

The universe is not "infinite", so it's not a "fact". It's about 90 billion light years across, (10[to the power of] 26 meters) according to that program.The Anthropic Principle is really more of a philosophical hypothesis, regarding the statistical probability or likelihood of a "Goldilocks zone", capable of supporting life, developing. It has nothing to do with "god"/"Gods".

You obviously know nothing about mathamatics, infinity is represented by a caduceus its a major part of mathamatics.

I know enough to know how the word is spelled correctly. I trained as an electronics engineer. So I have needed a better understanding of applied mathematics, by necessity, for my work, than perhaps would be necessary for, say...... a gardener. But I'm no expert.

To rule out intelligent design over the universe being simply a creation of random chaos is ignorance,

Ah.. "Intelligent Design". There it is... It's perfectly easy to "rule it out". Evolution is a fact, not a theory. although Darwin was a very perceptive man, and his speculations have been born out, and vindicated by generations of archaeology, palaeontology and the more recent genetic analysis of DNA., made possible by advances in technology.I prefer science, to "sky-daddies".The evidence is all around us. Nothing was "designed". Things constantly change and evolve, and adapt to changing environments. Catastrophic events, like meteor strikes, are capable of wiping out almost all life, and then it begins evolving again. (Assuming the constituents still exist, to support life).

If things require "intelligent design", then who "designed" the designer"...??Is there also an "infinite" hierarchy of "gods"..?I want to speak to the top man!

You're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever forms of 'woo-woo' floats your boat. But don't confuse fiction with facts, or expect the sane, rational, and skeptical amongst us, to agree....

Evolution is a fairytale . Saying it is a fact don't make it so. As mentioned before you are are trying to explain something that is beyond human capability to understand .Most people quoting scientist or science, don't even for a second understand the science or scientific evidence they are quoting .They have faith in what the scientist are telling them .Faith .

Whilst I believe that humanity/science cannot properly comprehend the possible existence of a being that might be able to do anything (eg, being able to will itself into existence) I believe in evolution over creationism.

Evolution makes more sense to me. I have no faith/belief in God as related in the various religions... If god (aka a cosmic architect) was to exist, I don't see why his existence would mean that evolution can't be true.

What prevents both being possibilities?

I'll never know the answers, despite the preaching from the hardcore atheists and god botherers, so I just go with what makes more sense to me and accept that anything (no matter how unlikely) could be possible.

Because evolution based on mainly created ''facts'' . Are there any ''real'' facts to back up the main points of the evolution stories ?I trust and believe in God because that's how I was brought up , but I have faith because of life experiences and things that happen to me that cannot be explained . God don't need to prove anything to us,God is immortal we are not.

In order to experience the wonders of God you have to first humble yourself like a child .God is not represented by preachers,popes or anyone assigned by men .Some people are good at preaching the gospel of Jesus and spreading the word of God but it's up to us to go humbly before God,confess our sins and ask for his guidance .It's a personal journey .

@Robinson ,what is trolling ?This a thread and we are debating ,don't like my point say why,don't come labelling it as trolling as I have commented in this thread only a few times.wwwwww

What are the real facts ?Do you even understand these ''facts'' ?

Is string theory fairytale or science ?

Do you understand anything about such theory ,is there any ''real'' evidence to back them up ?

As we evolve we discover more about the world and universe we live in ...We only have to look at the advances in the last 20 years. We can digress this topic in infinite directions and carry on talking about when and how the universe began but science also evolves daily and as more becomes known so previous ideas and theories go in the bin...This will go on forever...

We all have our own ideology and set of social values that at times we defend and shout about when challenged. There are many core beliefs though that most people share...We dont think its right to murder , commit sex acts on children or steal. The fact that some people do does not dismiss the fact that we on the whole believe its wrong so we remove those people from society either forever or until we believe they can be returned to society having rehabilitated and accepted that what crimes they committed are not acceptable to the majority of people.

The structure and fabric of law in most countries is based on religious values - Hence why we are asked to swear on the Bible. The fact that some countries choose to adhere more rigidly to a system of law based on religious values IE Sharia law does not make them less or more democratic than other systems of justice it simply means that a particular group shares core values they protect through a system of law based on their particular religion.

The fact that some scientists have now decided that God is just "All in our heads" will not change what people believe and to deride another person because they choose to believe in a God to me is as bad as being a racist or homophobic. The truth is that almost all of us have at a time of crisis have almost called out and prayed, hoping that if there is a God, then he/she/it will make everything in our life better again.

If we are all honest we all would like to believe that when we die there IS something after death. It does not matter if that something is a different level of consciousness or a spiritual existence - We just dont want that to be "It". Most of us love the concept and idea of seeing family and friends who have died again, it helps and brings us comfort if we can believe that can retrieve comfort blankets torn away when our parents and relatives are no longer here.

The idea of being reincarnated and having the chance to live again, correcting behaviour and becoming a better person 2nd,3rd,4th time round appeals to many of us and again gives us the comfort and protection we seek as we approach our final years.

The fact that religion has caused the deaths of countless hundreds and thousands is a different issue - Almost every religion has been persecuted at one time or another in history. If I wake up tomorrow and decide that the apple tree in my garden is actually a reincarnated God who will make me a better person then it is my choice whether to kneel before it and pray to it 15 times a day or dress it in silks and flowers on specific days of the year.

To me I really dont give a fig what so called scientists believe as regards religion or God. I would rather they focused on discovering more about the world and universe...If they want to poke around with our brains then perhaps they could look more at ways of preventing or slowing down the process of senility and dementia.

Is God in our head? well if the universal creationary force existed outside of it then all those meaning of life questions could be easily answered. This is a very personal concept and we all have our own ideas on who this works for us.

Religion on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish. The faults of religions have been done to death already (War, Genocide, conspiracies, theft etc) so i wont dwell on them here, but i do have a fresh way of looking at them.

ENSLAVED BY FEAR.

Now back in the pagan days, towards the end of the dark ages the early christians emerged and frankly spent more time avoiding getting sacrificed by the Druids than actually being very effective at spreading their message. They will come back into play later, but for now lets turn to the feudal system of Europe post dark ages.

The Ruling classes have always been aware that Revolution is bad news for them and invariably leads to them loosing their heads. The people Are mostly docile due to things like superstition, social engineering (i know best!) and luckily for the elite are blissfully unaware that the elite are scared of them. To ensure this reign of fear continues, the landowners would use the SERF ( not smurf) ,model, assign the tennents a parcel of land tax a percentage of the produce and let the communities sort themselves out via the barter system.

This worked very well for them until certain tradeskills became desirable and in short supply - stonemasons for example to build those lovely castles that can keep those nasty normans and vikings out. The stonemasons realised their value was more than they were getting (supply and demand) and formed a cooperative (the freemasons lol).

The Elite realised that they were getting out manouvered and couldnt tolerate this so they needed to invent a new system of control by fear. In The deepest reaches of France Ireland, scotland and Spain a new religion was forming, based on events in the Mediterranean. "What is its message?" they cried. "If you dont do as your priest/god representative tells you, your soul shall burn in purgatory for all eternity"

Now for the highly superstitious little people this was a terrifying prospect and the perfect crowd control tool, which was successfully utilised for a 1000 (ish) years.

Circa 1970 ish it became apparent that those damn hippies were not going to church anymore, the mods and rockers were too busy fighting eachother on bank holidays to take communion and what the f*ck does the age of aquarius really mean? All you have to do today is walk into any church on a sunday and be lucky to see 4 pensioners and a dog licking his balls to know that their fears came true..... no more control! lets devise a new fear mechanism!

i Give you the thatcherite great housing rip off, lets chain them in debt for the rest of thier lives, the fear of loosing something that is never really theirs will keep the buggers quiet!

This is how i see it all playing out anyway. Say hi to the new religion --- money------

On a controversial note, didnt Jesus come out of the temple and kicked over the tables of all the money lenders outside calling them an abomination? If there was a second comming and this happened today the bugger will get my support, thats for sure :)

We all to a degree have to rely on the knowledge of others to form our ideas........and yes that could be construed as a form of faith.We can’t all of us , all be astrophysicists , mathmeticians, palaeontologists, palaeobiologists, geneticists ect.Even the most knowledgeable of people have to ‘accept’ the evidence of others that comes from without their own particular field. That however can’t be compared with the blind faith of religion.I would hazard a guess the following is about right for most scientists;

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

‘scientists’ aren’t some weird alien species beyond our ken, they are everyday joes doing everyday jobs most of the time. There are a few loud and outspoken poster boys for atheism but on the whole the scientific community isn’t going about it’s business dedicated to disproving the existence of God. On the most part, most bods JUST DON’T CARE. Their job and their interest lies in the beauty and intrigue that comes from discovering more about our world.

On the whole I've given up these sort of discussions because they go nowhere and really there’s nothing to prove.I had the great good fortune when I was a wee young thing of having the priveledge of working alongside some of the palaeontologists in the John Day fossil beds for a couple of weeks. **stards didn’t pay me of course but I learnt a valuable lesson. There is nothing on Earth like trying to find out more about your world and scientists don’t spend their day wondering how their latest find will disprove Creation. They’re more bothered about the fact that the site portaloo needs emptying and the honey wagon ain't coming till next week.

The debate about religion or a belief in God (however you see it) and atheism or agnosticism, would be so much more enjoyable if it didn't always turn into some pointless pissing contest.

As some people have said, surely science should be focusing on discovering new things and exploring new realms, rather than trying to disprove something which cannot be disproved or mock people who have faith in god/religion

And maybe the hardcore god-botherers should take the stick out of their butt and accept that maybe not everything the religious teachings have said, is true.

But, they'll probably still try making out that they're the best and people who believe differently are degenerates of some kind.

I think you need to be much more precise and actually link us to these supposed studies and their results...should those assertions of yours actually exist.

Lol - by all means, let's all do what you think we need to do... but just for the record, I found everything about the studies in less time than it probably took you to type that sentence.... it's amazing what you can do when you can use a search engine.

I'm dying to know what your definition of an intellectual is and I would love to know what percentage of the human race deem themselves to be and the hows and whys they came to that conclusion....I do hope you won't disappoint by telling us that they are a small gathering of like minded individuals who came across each other on a dating site forum called plentyoffish who all agree that various Wikipedia sources are the ultimate in citation heaven for those who have never read a science book since high school but regardless believe that science has completely refuted the existence of God....

And since when did we start calling schools 'high schools' on this side of the pond?

And no, you're right, science hasn't refuted the existence of God, I do however think that science these days is asking questions so far beyond the concepts of primitive superstition that the notion of divinity is just a bit lame. And in any case - how can you prove god doesn't exist if he doesn't actually exist?

I think you need to be much more precise and actually link us to these supposed studies and their results...should those assertions of yours actually exist.

Sorry, I forgot to post a link, it was late.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090525225324AAud5zi

.I do hope you won't disappoint by telling us that they are a small gathering of like minded individuals who came across each other on a dating site forum called plentyoffish who all agree that various Wikipedia sources are the ultimate in citation heaven for those who have never read a science book since high school but regardless believe that science has completely refuted the existence of God.........

Wiki is "citation heaven", simply because there is no prospect of copyright infringement for this site to have to consider.Contrary to popular beliefs, they have an error rate in their information comparable to the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", but updated and corrected, far more frequently. It's a fairly reliable source, for the purpose of 'debates' here.

Science didn't "set out" to disprove the existence of "god". That was a complete accident.When Darwin conceived his ideas of Natural Selection, and Evolution, he actually "sat on it" for almost 20 years, because both he and his wife were deeply religious people (As were the majority, back then), and he knew these ideas were "blasphemous", and he didn't want to upset anyone. The church, of course, reacted predictably.

But here's some more 'evidence' regarding intelligence and likelihood of a belief in "god" :

Scientific American, September 1999

"Scientists and Religion in America"

"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."

Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.

Skeptic, vol.6 #2 1998

"Do You Believe in God?"

In multiple studies, there is a negative correlation between theism and morality. By Franzblau's 1934 study, there's a negative correlation between religiousity and honesty. Ross 1950 shows atheists and agnostics are more likely to express their willingness to help the poor than the deeply religious. 1969 Hirschi and Stark found no correlation in lawbreaking by churchgoing children and non-churchgoing children.

This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

8. Brown and Love, 1951At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htmAdmittedly, the studies are mostly in the USA., but probably more relevant, because that's an even more religious country, than Britain.Hope that helped.?Now perhaps YOU'D like to do similar, and provide some evidence to support your ridiculous, fantasy-laden claim, that:

and even more incredible than the idea that scientists are just normal people with abnormal interests is the fact that most of them actually believe in God..